Talk:Circumcision

Where do wiki editors get off...

...titling this page "circumcision" and the page for the female equivalent "female genital mutilation"? This page needs to be titled "male genital mutilation". That's some sexist crap right there. I'm requesting a discussion be opened on the topic.Brakoholic (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see this page's FAQ. Zad68 14:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Penilo-Cavernosus Reflex

Hi everyone, I want to add a piece of information to the "Circumcision" page under the "Adverse Effects". I was blocked temporarily a few days ago because I wasn't really aware of how Wikipedia worked and the rules associated with it. So today I am going to discuss what I want to post and the type of sources I have along with my proposal. I want to talk about how the penilo-cavernosus reflex is responsible for sexual, bowel, and urine function. The foreskin which is removed, contains a high density of fine-touch mechanoreceptors while the glans do not. Since the foreskin is removed in circumcision, the penilo-cavernosus reflex is less elicitable in circumcised men and men with retracted foreskins as opposed to men who are intact.

My source is the following link from a peer reviewed, BJUI International Journal. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10364.x/abstract According to Wikipedia, peer reviewed journals are allowable sources to use for medical purposes.

Please let me know what you think, thank you. BobbyEnlightened one088 (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

They won't let you add it because it is a primary source. I kind of agree. We have to think about undue weight. But you are slightly concerned, as I am, that the negative sexual effects of circumcision contained in secondary sources are not being outlined Tremello (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for replying, but that is a secondary source. It is a peer reviewed journal by BJUI International... Enlightened one088 (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This is important information that should be included in this article. Many of those who patrol this article and maintain it in its current poor and unbalanced state do not understand that primary sources ARE permitted per the medical article guidelines and general guidelines.

It is simply a question of not either giving them disproportionate mention("undue weight") or using them to contradict overview/review type secondary sources. If the article you came across is a secondary source I cannot see any problem, or a reason to block you for attempting to edit. Sometimes the courtesy extended to new editors generally appears to be lacking for new editors who attempt to add balance to this particular article. Here is the encyclopedia britannica entry on circumcision. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/118439/circumcision The contrast in objectivity and clear overview is startling. The entry in the catholic encyclopedia below too is interesting for many aspects including information on some cultures forcing circumcision on others and the suspension of circumcision entirely amongst jews during the forty years in the desert with Moses. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm Here are several other online encyclopedias on the subject: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/circumcision.aspx http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Circumcision Here is the Jewish Encyclopedia on the subject in wonderful detail on history, origins and motivation for genital cutting and trimming. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4391-circumcision Noteworthy IS the following statement. "The subject can not be adequately treated without a reference to the analogous operation of clitoridectomy performed on girls of nubile age"

and the section on the dangers of the custom called "mezizah" (where the cutter sucks the just cut infant's bloody penis tip with his mouth) is horrifying in particular the transmitting of syphilis to a large number of Jewish infant boys in Cracow in Poland by this practice. This is in addition to the similar herpes transmissions to children in New York resulting in some deaths, by the same practice. So far, we have not managed to make reference to either of these in our article.

I wonder whether we can use these other encyclopedias to good effect on this article and give a good spring clean to it? Perhaps, at present we cannot see the woods for the trees. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 07:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Tumadoireacht, thank you for replying, that was a lot of information to consider. I kind of agree with you about the unbalanced information in the circumcision page here. Also, the source I provided was indeed a secondary one. The original, primary source was reviewed by the BJUI International Journal (what I provided). This journal specifically covers most, if not all, aspects of urology. Enlightened one088 (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you read WP:MEDRS yet? Your original edit cited an anti-circumcision advocacy group, and isn't the kind of source considered reliable. Please do read WP:MEDRS to learn how to identify high quality secondary sources like the ones used in the article. Zad68 19:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zad, I have read WP:MEDRS, thank you. I have read it numerous times since I found out about it; that is why I changed my source and made sure I have input a reliable, secondary, peer reviewed, preferably a medical journal, as my source. Also, my original edit happened to be http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-02_Podnar.pdf If you actually click on it and read it, which I have a feeling you still have yet to do; Then you will know that technically, this is still considered a reliable source. If you look closely, "Doctorsopposingcircumcion" is only an organization, but the information they provided, is 100% reliable since it is still by the BJUI International Journal, and is indeed a secondary, peer reviewed source. Enlightened one088 (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a secondary source. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alexbrn, please read WP:MEDRS, you do not seem to know what secondary sources are. BJUI International Journals are considered very reliable, secondary sources. This is what I am presenting, if you take a closer look. Thank you Enlightened one088 (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to be confused, this is the source I am currently posting, it is clearly a secondary, peer reviewed source. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10364.x/abstract. This is the BJUI International Journal. Under their editorial policies and procedures, this is what they say: "The journal operates a stringent peer-review process. All manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editors, members of the Editorial Board, or other expert reviewers." Enlightened one088 (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a primary source. Pubmed tells us so. If you click on publication type here [1] it does not say review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Enlightened one088 – I have read WP:MEDRS, with comprehension. The paper you cite is a primary source: the authors are documenting a study they themselves conducted. It is a poor source for our purposes, and not usable here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The foregoing comments are in error in saying that this study cannot be referred to within the article . It DOES, however, appear to be a primary source. And it also DOES appear to confirm what many other studies, common knowledge and jewish religious tradition, and other traditions, have long known to be true - that cutting off a large chunk of one of the most sensitive parts of one's body DOES leave scars, completely dried("keratinized") skin on the entire penis head dome and some ways down the shaft, and consequent decreased sensitivity. I think a sentence along the lines of "One study has found -with statistics ...." would be the correct "weight" to give this important information. Are there any studies on whether loss of the foreskin decreases penis length or girth ?. I do remember reading somewhere that the "sliding sleeve effect" which is lost or diminished when the foreskin is cut off, decreases pleasure (and may increase chafing) for both sexual partners? Does anyone else remember the reference ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 08:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it is (as I wrote) not usable here: such a use would be using a primary source to counter the good secondary sources we use, which goes right against WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Your saying so repeatedly does not make your misinterpretation any more correct Alexbrn. Here is a relevant sentence from MEDRS which you may care to refresh your memory with :

"The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. "

The MEDRS says that primary sources should not be used to debunk or contradict secondary sources. They do not mention "countering" at all at all. Using a primary source to supplement secondary sources can be most useful and informative. My suggestion about using TERTIARY sources such as other encyclopedias remains unaddressed.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 14:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction is synonymous with countering. We don't in any case use primary sources, other than in exceptional circumstances (not met for your proposal). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)::

I hope that the small group of editors who patrol this article can come in time to see the difference between contradicting and supplementing, and the difference between giving disproportionate weight and excluding pertinent information altogether. The blanket practice of the latter has led to the peculiarly skewed article we presently have.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to publish a systematic review and meta analysis regarding this issue in the Lancet / BMJ / NEJM we would be happy to than reflect those conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Who is the we that you refer to ? If you wish to suspend the bizarre control exercised on this article which excludes any mention at all of forced circumcisions, disease and deaths caused by diseases transmitted during circumcisions and the deleterious effects on penis sensitivity post-circumcision we would be happy to help you into the light.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 08:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Summarizing the sexual effects and lead adequacy on summarizing the sexual effects?

See the #Reposting archived discussions without actually unarchiving those discussions section above.

Past discussion on these topics is at Talk:Circumcision/Archive 79#Summarizing the effects of circumcision on sexual function.

Most recent posts on this topic are below in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• We have this systematic review and meta analysis from 2013 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23749001 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If you actually read my reply, what I was actually saying doc James is that the aap report is not fairly reflected in this wiki article. Plus there is also the Dutch view too. So all in all, as it stands "'Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function" in the lede is biased. Tremello (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO we accurately reflect the conclusions of the APP report. Which text from that report do you believe contradicts our text? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is biased and POV

The article is clearly biased for circumcision. There are many logical and medical flaws in the arguments, but the article seems not to care or follow. From more than 1000 studies on circumcision it cherry-picks the most optimistic on circumcision. Maybe the english language is heavily influenced by the US, where circumcision is still defended by major institutions. All pediatric institutions in Germany or Northern Europe are today highly critical of non-medical circumcision. Therefore the whole picture seems all too rosy, when it comes to "less than one percent" complications (which is a high factor for medical standard procedures) and it does not come to the main issue at stake: That for no good reason 50 % of sensitive penile skin are amputed.

If I would have the time I would insert the comparison between HIV, HSV and penile cancer-rates in Denmark and the US. Circumcision rates in Denmark are about 1-3 % against the US with 40 %. Nonetheless, Denmarks STD-rate is far lower than in the US. Easy math. In cross-country-comparisons, anyone can see, that all the calculations about benefits from mass-circumcision are mumbo-jumbo, positivist constructions on a feeble base. What matters is culture, nutrition and healthcare.

"The most dramatic evidence of the protective effect of circumcision comes from a new study of couples in Uganda who had discordant HIV status; in this study the woman was HIV positive and her male partner was not.6 No new infections occurred among any of the 50 circumcised men over 30 months, whereas 40 of 137 uncircumcised men became infected during this time. Both groups had been given free access to HIV testing, intensive instruction about preventing infection, and free condoms (which were continuously available), but 89% of the men never used condoms, and condom use did not seem to influence the rate of transmission of HIV."

A study on such a base is ridiculous. It proves the following: That condom use does not influence the rate of transmission of HIV. This is the "most dramatic evidence" for circumcision vs. HIV today.

In reality, it is not only medically logical but also empirically proven, that mass-circumcision increased HIV-rates. Through scars and bleedings mainly. Any circumcised man will know, that you cannot pull the remaining skin as used in masturbation and sexual acts with uncircumcised men and this is where fissures come in, and fissures are an entrance for the HIVirus.

"According to findings of the Kenya Aids Indicator Survey (Kais) released last week, North Eastern and Coast provinces, where 97 per cent of males were circumcised, registered an increase in HIV prevalence." http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/hiv-increases-in-africa-where-most-men.html

The major issue is: On a very weak if not falsified base mass-circumcision promises the eradication of HIV. This is the biggest medical mass-experiment in modern times, funded by nations in which circumcision rates decline.

The main study on HSV in Uganda is seriously flawed by ethical standards, as it randomly sends people to circumcision: "of these subjects, 1684 had been randomly assigned to undergo immediate circumcision (intervention group) and 1709 to undergo circumcision in 24 months (control group). The retention rates at 24 months were 81.9% (1370 of 1673 subjects) in the intervention group and 82.0% (1395 of 1701) subjects in the control group."

No such study would be possible in Europe for ethical reasons. Only racist bias allows for mass-experiments in such an invasive manner. Retention rates show, how many individuals rejected circumcision: about 18 % left the study, because it seemed inappropriate to them to get circumcised.

Then: The study does not talk about sexual abstinence during circumcision. Abstinence is likely to last 3 months but also exceeds 2 years, as the penile skin changes in that time, causing uneasyness and avoidance of sexual acts.

In any case, the data-mining attitude (surveys) just show one more attempt to overcome the objections of common sense and reason. 1. If babies don't feel pain, would one vote for infant-FGM once a blinded and randomized study proves, that there is a 50-60% rate to avoid HIV-contraction? FGM-Countries like egypt, Sudan and Gambia have a lower HIV-rate than South-Africa or Botswana with low or no FGM. 2. If it doesn't matter to loose 40-60 scm of penile skin, would the same studies call for the removal of the palm-skin, given the same evidence? The foreskin is even more sensitive than the Palm. 3. If it doesn't matter for one's sexlife that 40-60 scm of penile skin are gone, what conclusions come out of this? That psychological compensation is a strong factor, or that it doesn't matter for sex if 50 scm of skin are gone? Why then use skin at all, if skin doesn't matter? 4. The gender bias: The foreskin is not that much different from female labias or clitoris. In fact, the clitoris is never fully excised in FGM-2, as it stretches 11 cm into the female body. Any study vowing for male circumcision with the argument of benefits has to prove, why the same findings in FGM would make any difference for practice. Breast-amputation effectively precents breast-cancer. Women with small or no breasts don't show less lust in sexual acts. Study finished. Islamist scholars argue for FGM with the argument of HIV and "cleanliness". This should make us suspicious at last.

The entire positivist language of the so-called "medical" studies harvesting percentages are in fact only sociological mass-experiments without any advanced medical theory. Such a theory would include psychology, psychosomatics, sex-science, culture, anatomy and in the end philosophy. The attempts to settle the arguments with sheer numbers and data-mumbo-jumbo fails to grasp the main argument, which is philosophical (moral philosophy), psychological, anatomical and cultural. And it does not meet the contradicting surveys which prove exactly the opposite, for example a study with high-risk group proved no difference or even slight benefits of uncircumcised gay men in the UK:

Also see, how easy it is to get the "60% reduction": One study, led by Auvert, offered medical circumcision to men in a region of South Africa and compared them with a non-circumcised group. After 21 months, there were 20 cases of HIV in the circumcised group and 49 among the uncircumcised men, equating to a 60% reduction in HIV risk.

77.0.52.159 (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree. Also, the human foreskin is highly innervated and vascularized sensitive erogenous tissue. It plays an important role in normal human sexual response and is necessary for normal copulatory behavior. An understanding of this role is now emerging in the scientific literature. Removal of the foreskin (circumcision) interferes with normal sexual function.

Some sources:

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY, Volume 26, http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/winkelmann2/

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, Volume 141, http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/moldwin1/

BRITISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, Volume 77, http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/

Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/winkelmann/

British Journal of Urology, Volume 83, http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/

Egyptian boy (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Violence against men

Looking over the category description and pages categorized with it, this does not seem to be the kind of article that belongs there. This seems more about the medical procedure. Perhaps the cat belongs on one of the other pages linked in the various culture-related sections? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree, category not supported. Zad68 05:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Conversely we have another article devoted to the surgical procedure and this one IS SUPPOSED to be, and one day may become the "flagship" overview article mentioning all pertinent aspects of the varieties of circumcision in all its horror and its joy.When children and adults have a body part involuntarily and sometimes forcibly cut off for cultural reasons this ought to be mentioned here. That it is not tells us a great deal about the ongoing weakness of the wikipedia model in the face of a concerted cabal --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)